My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP12513
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP12513
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:43:12 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:55:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
9/9/1993
Doc Name
TRANSMITTAL OF THIRD PARTY MONITORING REPORT APRIL 28-29 1993
From
DMG
To
BATTLE MOUNTAIN RESOURCES INC
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~ u III IIIIIIIII IIII III <br />STATE OF CO i ORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman SI., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Phone: 13031 866-3567 <br />FA%:(3031832-8106 <br />September 9, 1993 <br />Ms. A1ana Scott <br />Battle Mountain <br />P O Box 310 <br />Resources Inc. <br />San Luis, CO 81152-0310 <br />OF ~~/p <br />~< <br />R~4b <br />o <br />a <br />/B ]6 <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />Michael B. Long <br />Division Director <br />RE: Transmittal of Third Party Monitoring Report, April 28-29, 1993 <br />Dear Ms. Scott: <br />Transmitted herewith is the report from Dr. Ann Maest, RCG/Hagler, <br />Bailly, Inc., titled: <br />Summary Report: Third-party Monitoring of Battle Mountain resource <br />Inc.'s San Luis Gold Mine, San Luis, Colorado, April 28-29, 1993 <br />I have noted two insignificant editorial mistakes in the text (P. 4; <br />§3.1.2, ~1, line 4: Change "total WAD cyanide" to "total cyanide". P. <br />11 §4.'0, ~2, line 6: Change "possible" to "possibly"), Otherwise, the <br />report is acceptable to the Division. <br />The Conclusions section (§4.0) contains two comments that require a <br />response from Battle Mountain. Please respond to tlhe following <br />comments as soon as possible. <br />1. "Given the problems with WAD and total cyanide and the noted <br />differences in cyanide concentrations in filtered and unfiltered <br />samples, it would be important to conduct spike rr?coveries on <br />every process point sample, especially unfiltered samples." <br />2. "AS recommended in the last third-party monitoring summary report, <br />a more consistent and detailed study of interferencles should be <br />conducted by an analytical laboratory. Given the long turnaround <br />times and the problems with reanalyses and results in the QA/QC <br />reports, it is difficult to recommend Core Laboratories for this <br />interference study. Another laboratory should be identified for <br />this study and possibly for use as the main analytical laboratory. <br />I anticipate having the fourth monitoring report within the day, and <br />will do all I can to review it with top priority so that the sampling <br />schedule may resume. Anticipating no problems, I recommend that Battle <br />Mountain set up the next two sampling trips with the third-party <br />monitor as soon as possible. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.